Holding

The Court held that the earlier Supreme Court judgment applies to all officers and that Group C and D employees are not entitled to the special duty allowance; the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, Group C and D employees of the Special Security Bureau in the North‑Eastern Region, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking the special duty allowance that had been granted to Group A and B officers. The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. S. Vijay Kumar (1994), had held that the allowance was intended to attract officers from outside the region and was not a right of all employees. The petitioners argued that denial of the allowance violated Article 14 and that they could invoke the earlier judgment despite not being parties to it. The Court held that the earlier judgment binds all categories of officers, that the petitioners are not entitled to the allowance, and that they cannot raise fresh grounds in a writ petition. It also directed that advocates must certify that parties were advised of the binding judgment before filing such petitions. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Group C and D employees are entitled to the special duty allowance under the earlier Supreme Court judgment.
Whether a party not a litigant in the earlier case can invoke the judgment in a writ petition under Article 32.
Whether the government may recover amounts of allowance paid before the earlier judgment.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 141, s. Article 32

Subjects

Special duty allowanceArticle 32Article 14Article 141Service lawWrit petitionEqualityGroup C and D employeesNorth Eastern Region

Judgment

A SUB-INSPECTOR SADHAN KUMAR GOSWAMI AND ORS.
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 25, 1996 .

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.)

Service Law.

Special Duty Allowance-Entitlement-Negatived by Supreme.
Court-Whether party ·to the earlier judgment or not, whether belongs to
C Officers in Group A,B,C or D-None is entitled to it-The judgments binds
all-constitution of India, Article 141.

Union of India & Ors. v. S. Vijay Kumar & Ors., (1994) Suppl. 3 SCR
716·719, relied on.
D
Constitution of India, Article 32 :

Writ petition-Filing of-Advocate-on-Record to file a statement· and
certificate that the.party was advised that the matter was covered by Supreme
Court judgment and yet the party insisted to file the same-Only then the
E Court would deal with such writ petitions.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 794 of 1996.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

Sankar Ghosh and Amlan Ghosh for the Petitioners.
·--
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

. This writ petition under Article 32 is one of the series of cases we
have come across to reopen the judgment/orders of this Court rendered
G under Article 136 of the Constitution of India after.their becoming final.

The admitted facts are that the petitioners who joined service under
the Spedal Security Bureau (SSB) in North Eastern Region of India,
claimed special duty allowances as per order of the Central Government.
The question was considered by this Court in Union of India v. S. Vijay
H Kumar CA No. 3251 of 93 decided on September 20, 1994; .therein this
814
SUB-INSPECTOR SX GOSWAMI v. U.0.1. 815

Court had held thus : A

"We have duly considered the rival submissions and a•e inclined
to agree with the contention advanced by the learned Additional
Solicitor General, Shri Tulsi for two reasons. The first is that a
close perusal of the two aforesaid memoranda:, along with what B
was stated in the memorandum dated 29.10.i986 which has been
quoted in the memorandum of 20.4.1987, clearly shows that al-
lowance in question was meant to attract persons outside the. North
Eastern Region to work in that Region because of inaccessibility
and tdifficult terrain. We have said so because even the· 1983 C
memorandum starts by saying that the need for the allowance was
felt for "attracting and retaining" the service of the competent
officers for service in the North-Eastern Region .. Mention about
retention has been made because it was found that incumbents
going to that Region on deputation used to come back after joining D
. thereby taking leave and, therefore: the memorandum stated that
this period of leave would be excluded while counting the period
of tenure of posting which was required to be of 2/3 years to claim
the allowance depending upon the period of service of the incum-
bent. The 1986 memorandum makes this position clear by stating
that Central Government civilian employees who have All lndi~ E
Transfer Liability would be granted the allowance "on posting to
any station to the North-Eastern Region". This aspect is made clear
beyond doubt by the 1987 memorandum which stated that al-
lowance would not become payable merely because of the clause
in the appointment order relating to All India Transfer Liability. F
Merely because in the office memoranda of 1983 the subject was
mentioned as quoted above is not be enough to concede to the
submission of Dr. Ghosh.

The submission of Dr. Ghosh that the denial of the allowance to the G
residents would violate the equal pay doctrine is adequately met by what
was held in Reserve Bank of India v. Reserve Bank of India Staff officers
Association & Ors., [1991] 4 SCC 132; to which an attention has been
invited by the Learned Additional Solicitor General, in which grant of
special compensatory allowance ·or remote locality allowance only to the H
\
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A officers transferred from outside to Gauhati Unit of the Reserve Bank of
India, while denying the same to the local officers posted at the Gauhati
Unit, was not regarded as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

In view of the above, this Court allowed the appeals of the State and
B held that the respondents were not entitled to the allowances but whatever
amount was paid upto the date of the judgment, was directed not to be
recovered from them. The petitioners are relying upon the Office
Memorandum dated July 11, 1996 which provided that "it is not applicable
from one station to another station within the region of Group A and B
staff will further continue to get the facilities". They have filed this writ
C petition contending that while the Group C and D employees have been
denied the benefit of the above judgment, special duty allowance benefit
is being granted to Group A and B; it tantamounts to violation of Article
14 and, therefore, the writ petition should be allowed so as to give them
the same be;nefit. Admittedly, the petitioners are Group C and D
employees and are bound by the above declaration of law made by this
D Court. Merely because they were not parties to the judgment, they cannot
file writ petiti9n under Article 32. The contention that they are entitled to
get the benefit at par with Group A and B officers under the above.
Memorandum dated July 11, 1996 is not correct. Apart from the fact that
Group A and B employees are entitled to special duty allowance contrary
E to the law detjared by this Court in the above judgment, they too are bound
by it; whether or not they are entitled to the above benefit due to this
Court's judgment, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the
allowances as claimed by them. The judgment of this Court would indicate
that it did not make any distinction between Group C and D and Group
F A and B Officers. All are governed by the law under Article 141. The
petitioners are not entitled to the payment of the special duty allowance
irrespective of whether or not they were parties to the judgment rendered
in Vijay Kumar's case (supra); they cannot be permitted to rais.e new
grounds, though not raised or argued in earlier case, to canvas. the correct-
ness of the judgment by filing the writ petition under Article 32.
G
Of late, we have been coming across this type of writ petitions filed
by several parties. We are constrained to take the view. that the learned
counsel who are advising them to move this court under Article 32 should
certify to the court that though they advised the petitioners that the
H judgment of this Court binds them and cannot canvass its correctness and
SUB-INSPECTOR S.K GOSWAMI v. U.0.1. 817
•
still, in spite of such advice, the party insisted upon filing the writ petition. A
It would then be for this Court to consider and deal with the case ap-
l;, propriately. Hereinafter, it .would be necessary that the Advocate-on-
Record should file, as part of the Paper book of the writ petition filed
under Article 32, a statement and certificate that the party concerned was
advised that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court and yet B
the writ petitioner insisted to file the same. Should such certification form
part of the record of the petition, then only the Court would deal with the
writ petition. In view of the fact that Class C and D employees are not
entitled to special duty allowance as per the law already declared by this
Court, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit.
c
It is next contended that the Government is recovering as per
Memorandum dated January 12, 1996 the amounts paid which is contrary
to the direction issued by this Court in the above judgment. The petitioners
are not right in their contentions. It is seen that the Government have
limited the payments already made after the date of the judgment of this
Court;. payments made prior to that date are not being recovered. D
Under those circumstances, we do not think that there will be any
justification to direct the respondents not to recover the amount from the
petitioner after the date of the judgment of this Court.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. E
G.N. Petition dismissed.

-~
'
•
..
!